James why do you think they failed so spectacularly?
It's obvious Sir ...
8 replies (most recent on top)
Can Intel survive when Moore's law slows or they slip a generation? Other companies have fabs running older nodes and generating revenue and new products showing up. Intel has all the eggs of new products in 10nm if it slips intel fall on their face and will have little time!
Took Kodak about 20 years to get to 1.00 a share
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20111204
Wow you guys get it. How long does Intel have?
The writing was on the wall all the time, huge volumes drive standards and builds the virtuous cycle with every higher moat to cross. Billions of ARM chips sold for low profit multiplying everywhere in phones, chromebooks, IoT, and soon servers too.
The play book was used by Grove and Intel so well in the 90s and early 2000's how stupid was the leadership to think it couldn't happen. They prove again like the leaders of old technology they are poisoned and simply can't be strong enough to eat their own golden goose, and in the end someone else slays the goose. The margins of x86 are the envy of the world, nobody was going to hand them the mobile, tablet, memory or IoT. They can only hope the x86 complier moat can hold of the cheap ARM zhombies that are building bridges across the performance moat, they just keep coming and coming and will be the first on 10nm too!
I remember reading Christianson's book, and then thinking that it would land on deaf ears and blind eyes at Intel. I just didn't want to be right.
I'm really surprised at how Intel has succumbed to exactly the danger it obsessed about in the 1990's. At that time Clay Christensen was the guru that everybody worshipped, with his writing on disruptive innovation, how new competitors rise up in unprofitable and underappreciated corners of each industry. And then Intel completely blows it in mobile, in exactly the same way described in Christensen's work. New business areas have lower margins and (seemingly) limited upside - the iPhone and other smartphone chipsets - so the company "wisely" avoids them, but then realizes its mistake (late) and tries to use the approach that has worked so well for it in the past - make the x86 dominant in mobile in the way it is in PCs - and then struggles to understand why its previous success isn't automatically replicated in the new world. It's really a story that's as old as business itself, and so predictable that's it's sad. How the mighty fall.
Intel's failures are older than BK. I have seen multiple decisions made at this company that have led us to where we are today. Several Billion $$'s invested by Kingdom builders with no real intent to monetize them and grow the company, several small investments with high yield forgone due to a very long approval process with accounting/finance driving decisions (The worst a tech company can do according to one Mr. Steve Jobs).
We needed to grow up a long a time ago and stop sucking on the Cash Cow given to us by the founders. The leaders chose otherwise and now we all pay for it.
Because BK is stupid, has stupid ideas like marketing drones, blows more money than he brings in as revenue, and then fires the best performers. Truly disgraceful.